Texas Is Imagineering Abortion 'Complications' To Back Up Its Lies About Abortion
Surely no one will notice, except for everyone who already has.
One of the very annoying things about abortion, for people who are against abortion, is that abortions are very safe and people almost never regret them. In fact, studies have shown that five years after an abortion, nearly everyone who has one says it was the right decision for them.
In a perfect world, for them, those who had them would suffer lifelong health complications and severe depression and regret. That way, they could claim that actually the most "pro-woman" thing they could do would be to take our reproductive choices away and force us to bear children whether we want to or not.
Texas, however, is doing the next best thing. As reported by Jessica Valenti's Abortion, Every Day Substack newsletter, the state now requires doctors to report basically any issue experienced by anyone who has had an abortion at any point in their life as a "complication" of that abortion. Texas law lists 28 medical issues as possible complications of abortion, many of which have no actual known direct link to abortion.
(1) shock;
(2) uterine perforation;
(3) cervical laceration;
(4) hemorrhage;
(5) aspiration or allergic response;
(6) infection;
(7) sepsis;
(8) death of the patient;
(9) incomplete abortion;
(10) damage to the uterus;
(11) an infant born alive after the abortion;
(12) blood clots resulting in pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis;
(13) failure to actually terminate the pregnancy;
(14) pelvic inflammatory disease;
(15) endometritis;
(16) missed ectopic pregnancy;
(17) cardiac arrest;
(18) respiratory arrest;
(19) renal failure;
(20) metabolic disorder;
(21) embolism;
(22) coma;
(23) placenta previa in subsequent pregnancies;
(24) preterm delivery in subsequent pregnancies;
(25) fluid accumulation in the abdomen;
(26) hemolytic reaction resulting from the administration of ABO-incompatible blood or blood products;
(27) adverse reactions to anesthesia or other drugs; or
(28) any other adverse event as defined by the United States Food and Drug Administration's criteria provided by the MedWatch Reporting System.
Under the threat of possibly losing their license, doctors in Texas are required to submit private patient information into this database without the patient's knowledge and regardless of whether or not it was actually caused by the abortion. This applies to every physician a patient sees, so if they see more than one doctor about an issue, both doctors are required to report — meaning that one "adverse event" that isn't even an adverse event could be reported multiple times.
MORE: Should Biden, FDA Just Ignore Upcoming Rightwing Hack Abortion-Pill-Banning Judge Ruling?
The point of this is not only to back up their ridiculous abortion bans, but to make forced birth enthusiasts feel good about themselves. They don't like the fact that every time they make up some stupid thing about abortion, doctors and psychologists come out in droves to say "No, that's wrong, this doesn't happen," so they want medical data to back this up.
Feigning academic seriousness has inarguably made it easier for anti-choice activists to lobby politicians and influence court decisions, but the anti-abortion movement still hasn’t been able to break through into the medical mainstream: Every time anti-choice organizations spread a new lie about the dangers of abortion, the scientific community shuts them down. [...]
And that’s the rub; while anti-abortion activists have successfully seeded misinformation in conservative legislation and culture, actual experts have never found their ‘science’ credible. (It doesn’t help, of course, that conservatives are in the habit of reminding Americans how little they know about reproductive health via a steady stream of unfortunate gaffes.)
The anti-abortion movement knows that people don’t trust them when it comes to women’s bodies. That’s what makes abortion complication reports so politically valuable. This is data submitted by independent physicians—reports that conservatives will claim were objectively collected. No need to mention that the doctors were pressured to report under threat of losing their jobs!
There is almost no procedure that doesn't come with the possibility of complications. Plastic surgery comes with the possibility of complications. Colonoscopies come with the possibility of complications. Getting wisdom teeth extracted comes with the possibility of complications. Hell, when I used to pierce ears at Claire's we had to give people a little pamphlet informing them about the possibilities of complications, including allergic reactions, keloids, bacterial infections, etc. Coolsculpting, a fat freezing procedure, can cause horrific deformities, as it did with Linda Evangelista. Pedicures, frankly, come with the risk of far more serious complications than do abortions. I've never heard of someone having to get their leg amputated after an abortion. I'm dead serious, do not let them turn the bubbles on, never shave your legs beforehand, and never, never, never let them razor your calluses off — if it's that bad, just Baby Foot it (Wonkette cut link).
Life, in general, comes with the possibility of complications. We all understand this. What Texas is trying to do, however, is make it look like abortion is far more dangerous than it actually is, in order to back up an agenda. They could do literally the same thing with any other procedure in order to make it look dangerous.
It's legitimately frightening that they can't just be happy with having won this one. They can't just be happy with having overturned Roe, they have to turn every vagina and uterus and doctor's office into a full-on police state.
The thing is, they can have all the pretend data they want. If everyone knows how it was collected, it's still not going to be seen as legitimate by anyone with half a brain — which is what they were hoping for with this. The main effect of this, ultimately, is that ob-gyns and physicians in general are not going to want to practice in a state where they can't treat their patients without playing this game or risking their jobs. It's not worth it! Already, 71 counties in Texas don't have a hospital, over half don't have an ob-gyn and 25 don't have a single physician. Already, ob-gyn applications for residencies in Texas and other anti-abortion states have dropped 10 percent and many practicing ob-gyns have already left.
Alas, it's going to be pretty hard to paint abortions as being the more dangerous option when there are so few ob-gyns and regular physicians in Texas that they're probably going to have to bring back barber surgeons to deliver babies and provide other forms of medical treatment.
Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons.
Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!
Can We Talk About This 'Abortion Up Until The Moment Of Birth' Nonsense?
There's a lot that even abortion rights supporters aren't getting here.
Republicans have started to realize that their radical anti-abortion policies are not exactly overwhelmingly popular with the general public, even in the reddest of states. Thus, many of them are now trying to paint Democrats as the extremists, claiming that if abortion rights supporters have their way, people will be having abortions "right up until the moment of birth."
In debates and discussions, they've been leaning hard on this, because they think it is the ultimate gotcha question. If they can get the abortion rights supporter to "admit" that it is bad to kill viable fetuses the day before the mother goes into labor, they can then call out those who oppose restrictions as especially radical and then work backwards to justify restricting abortion in other ways. If the supporter stumbles, tries to explain that what they are thinking happens doesn't actually happen, or tries to justify it in the usual ways we explain why abortion is necessary, they do the "Then why can't it be illegal?" or "See! It's clear that you just love human sacrifice!" shuffle.
Now, the actual fact is that this does not happen. No one under the care of a doctor is carrying a baby for nine months and then deciding "Eh, you know what? I think I'm gonna pass." There are not doctors who are killing viable fetuses who can live outside the womb for no reason. We all understand this. We understand that it is a ridiculous fantasy scenario concocted by people who, I'm pretty sure, don't actually believe it happens either.
But because we understand this, it can be sometimes awkward to explain why there can't be any restrictions in place saying "this can only happen to save the life of the mother." If it doesn't happen, what's the problem with making it illegal? Other than that, by making something illegal, you are more or less conceding that it does or could happen. This is why we have no regulations on flying elephants.
The problem, however, is already right in our faces.
In states that have "life of the mother" exceptions on their terrible abortion bans, we are already seeing patients' health being harmed because doctors are not sure where they can actually draw the line. They are waiting to treat people in medical emergencies, because they need to check with a panel or committee first, and because they are afraid that someone will come along and say "That wasn't enough of an emergency and now you are going to prison or losing your license."
This is not something that can or should be regulated by the state. It is something that should be — can only be — decided between a doctor and patient. A doctor needs to be able to act quickly in the event of an emergency and being hampered by the state puts the patient in danger.
The issue is not "Should people have the right to abort a baby the day before they are set to give birth?" but "Should we put patients at risk by not letting their doctors act quickly to do what is necessary to preserve their lives and health over a thing that doesn't actually happen?" Or to put it in a way the more libertarian among them might understand "To what extent should the state be allowed to regulate things that do not actually happen, particularly in cases where those regulations may cause direct harm to individuals?"
This kind of discussion comes up not just on television, but on social media and family dinners. It's a question that is even often asked by less-well-informed people but not necessarily malicious people who have been told that we are all in favor of no-reason-day-before-birth abortions and want to know what the deal is with that. The ground war here is just as important as anything else and as stupid as this talking point is, it's worth discussing how to address it effectively.
Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons.
Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!
The Flat Circle Of Republican Stupidity
It's your never-ending Sunday show rundown!
Republicans long for a past that never was, and this inevitably leads them to sound like idiots as they twist themselves into pretzels trying to rationalize their calls for societal regression. Need examples? Let's look at some in the Sunday shows!
We're Not Book Burning, You're the Book Burning!
Republican National Committee Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel was on "Fox News Sunday," and while discussing the party's post 2022 debrief report, she said a few things that were surprisingly truthful.
MCDANIEL: [...] biggest takeaway we are taking is independents did not break our way, which has to happen if we're going to win in 2024, which usually that's what causes that red wave. And abortion was a big issue in key states like Michigan and Pennsylvanian. [...] Republicans are migrating. They are migrating to red states. [...] But it means the White House electorally isn't available to us unless we go through a purple or blue state. And those states are getting bluer, because red voters are moving to the red states. [...] the path to the White House runs not just through independents, but every single Republican getting on board.
It's pretty shocking to hear anyone in the RNC, much less its chairperson, point out an objective reality. So what different actions or rhetoric do they plan to use to better their chances in 2024? Like, for example, abortion:
MCDANIEL: [...] What abortion is a bad idea to Democrats? Ninth month, eighth month, seventh month? They can't even articulate an abortion that's a bad idea. Gender selection, if it's a girl, you get to abort it. Tax-funded abortions for people where it's against their religious conscience. [...]
Nothing, then. They plan on changing nothing and expecting different results. If only there was a phrase for that.
Actually, correction, they do have another political strategy: The ole' "we're rubber, you're glue"!
When asked about Republican attacks on trans people, which are politically unpopular, McDaniel attempted some very strained whataboutism.
MCDANIEL: [...] the Democrats are using this word book banning. [...] That's a lie. There isn't book banning. What Republicans are doing are protecting our children and parental rights [...] But it's good to know the Democrats playbook and we're going to push on that, especially coming from the Democrat party that is banning freedom of speech, that is canceling people, that is destroying your life if you don't think with their orthodoxy. This is the Democrat Party who is saying if you think outside of the box and everything, we are dictating to you, you will make you lose your job, we will destroy you.
Republicans have literally been fighting Disney because it dared exercised free speech, made book banning much easier, extended Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bigotry, and threatened to separate children from parents who are not bigoted toward their trans kids. But, sure, it's the Democrats who are "destroying anyone who doesn't conform to orthodoxy and taking their jobs while threatening to destroy them."
Speaking of, how's that dirt file on fired Fox News host Tucker Carlson?
Let's Default Our National Debt!
House Republican Whip Tom Emmer appeared on CNN's "State of The Union" and wouldn't directly state that his party won't force a default on the nation's debt.
\u201cRep. Tom Emmer on CNN doesn't categorically guarantee that the US won't default on its debt\u201d— Aaron Rupar (@Aaron Rupar) 1682861027
Host Dana Bash tried pointing out specifically how the cuts they want would hurt his constituents, but Emmer made it clear he will ignore them or just blame Nancy Pelosi when the reality doesn't match his delusions.
\u201cAfter Dana Bash presents him with a specific list of ways in which the House GOP debt ceiling/spending cuts bill would hurt his constituents in Minnesota, Emmer claims, "These are spending reforms. And all we're doing is going back to the Biden/Pelosi budget of last year."\u201d— Aaron Rupar (@Aaron Rupar) 1682861027
GOP's Vanity Tech Douche Candidate Returns
NBC's "Meet The Press" had on Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Although considering his polling, calling him a candidate is a bit too generous, but nonetheless, we are all subjected to his stupidity on TV and expected to take him seriously. So fresh from giving Don Lemon his last good journalistic moment on CNN, Ramaswamy made Chuck Todd look like Walter Cronkite.
When Ramaswamy brings up an example of a person who says their gender doesn't align with their biological sex, he seems to know the difference between sex and gender. But when Todd questions his stance on gender being binary, Ramaswamy then perhaps deliberately conflates biological sex with gender.
RAMASWAMY: Well, there's, there’s two X chromosomes if you're a woman. An X and a Y, that means you're a man.
TODD: There's a lot of scientific research out there –
RAMASWAMY: There's a biological basis for this —
TODD: There's a lot of scientific research out there that says gender is a spectrum.
RAMASWAMY: Chuck, I respectfully disagree.
Funny how these transphobic clowns want to bring biology into this UNTIL scientific research disputes their transphobia and then they fall back on what they "feel" or disagree just because.
Ramaswamy also equates abortion with murder but says it's a "states' right issue." That's not how "states' rights" work, even if a Republican nominee barely polling above skim milk says so.
Asa Hutchinson's Decimal Points
Speaking of polling, Asa Hutchinson announced he was running for president almost exactly a month ago. He appeared on CNN's "State Of the Union" this week to call for going back to a Republican Party that died long before Trump came down an escalator in 2015. So how are Republican voters embracing this? We'll let this picture summarize it.
Can this change for Hutchinson? Likely not when he is polling lower than the fictional Conor Roy in "Succession," who we actually compared to Hutchinson too optimistically.
\u201cAsa Hutchinson\u2019s chances at being the GOP nominee:\u201d— M3Writer (@M3Writer) 1680530149
Phrasing, Steve Scalise!
When asked about any possible tension between himself and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on ABC's "This Week," Steve Scalise chose an odd way to describe their closeness yet trust.
\u201cSteve Scalise says he has an open relationship with Kevin McCarthy\u201d— Aaron Rupar (@Aaron Rupar) 1682865629
Could be worse: Scalise could have kept misunderstanding what "raw dog" is.
\u201cHarrison Ford\u2019s character in SHRINKING using the term \u201craw dog\u201d incorrectly is comedy gold.\u201d— M3Writer (@M3Writer) 1682943663
Have a week
Anti-Abortion Lawmakers Can't Even Pass Bans In Their Own Republican-Controlled Legislatures
Abortion bans failed this week in both Nebraska and South Carolina.
Anti-abortion Republican legislators in both Nebraska and South Carolina, two of the reddest states in the country, tried and failed to pass incredibly restrictive anti-abortion laws this week in their own legislatures. It's one thing, these days, for these laws to fail miserably when voted on by the people in a referendum — as has been the case every time abortion has been on the ballot — but to have them fail in Republican-controlled legislatures is a pretty big deal. Even if they only fail by one vote.
South Carolina currently bans abortion after 20 weeks. The state already passed a six-week ban last year, but it is currently being blocked by the state's supreme court on the grounds that it violates the right to privacy in the state's constitution. Still, some Republicans were hoping for a chance to pass something even more extreme than that. They wanted to pass the Human Life Protection Act, which would have banned abortion entirely, from conception, with exceptions for rape, life and health of the mother, and fatal fetal anomalies.
The Senate, however, rejected the bill in a 22-21 vote, with three Republicans switching sides to vote against it.
“Once a woman became pregnant for any reason, she would now become property of the state of South Carolina if the ‘Human Life Protection Act’ were [to] come into law,” Republican state Sen. Katrina Frye Shealy, who voted against the bill, said Wednesday during debate. “She could no longer make decisions on her own or at the advice of her well-trained doctor. Every female, regardless of her age, would suddenly become subject to the power of a code book regarding her health.”
By George, I think she's got it!
In Nebraska, a so-called "Heartbeat Act" that would have banned abortions after six weeks, before many even know they are pregnant, was stalled in the legislature when anti-choice Republicans were unable to garner enough votes to end the filibuster against it; they came one vote shy of the two-thirds supermajority they needed. They would have been able to do it, too, if two other Republican legislators hadn't abstained from voting. Whoops!
The measure failed despite some very compelling speeches on the Nebraska floor from anti-abortion legislators like state Sen. Steve Halloren, who helpfully explained that "No one's forcing anyone to be pregnant. Pregnant's a voluntary act between two consenting adults."
\u201cNebraska State Sen. Steve Halloran (R-Hastings): "No one's forcing anyone to be pregnant. Pregnant's a voluntary act between two consenting adults."\u201d— Heartland Signal (@Heartland Signal) 1682626087
How very Todd Akin of him. He will surely be very surprised to discover that "pregnant" is not always a voluntary act and that the female body does not, in fact, have ways of shutting things down if it's not. Additionally, consent to sex is not the same thing as consent to pregnancy.
State Sen. Mike Jacobson, who did seem understand that people can get pregnant through non-consensual sex, waxed on about how "personal responsibility."
\u201cNebraska State Sen. Mike Jacobson (R-North Platte) says with rape and incest exemptions and the availability of contraception and pregnancy tests, there is no need for abortion:\n\n\u201cSo, ultimately what this comes down to is personal responsibility.\u201d\u201d— Heartland Signal (@Heartland Signal) 1682621992
Why do they think this is such a good argument? Why on earth would they want people they think are "irresponsible" to be raising children or even carrying pregnancies to term? How would that be a good thing? It's the same question I have about people who get upset about the idea of people hypothetically "using abortion as birth control." Why would you want someone like that raising children in the first place? I don't get it.
But I also think that children are not a punishment for being irresponsible and that they deserve to be wanted and deserve to be raised in a loving home by people who are ready and responsible enough to do so. I'm crazy like that.
These bills may have only been defeated by small margins, and we may still have a lot of fight left to go, but the fact that these bans failed in these very states is a pretty good sign that we are on the right track.
Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons.
Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!